OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

legaldocml message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: Tomorrow LegalDocML TC meeting


Dear all, 

as I volunteered, please find in the following my understanding of the topics in the Chile example we discussed in the last conference call. I will consider the following excerpt from Sesion56_2_esquema3.xml that was provided to us on October 10th by Monica Palmirani on behalf of Christian Sifaqui. 

This is one debateSection, where a MP, mr Ortiz, makes a proposal to include a document in the official acts. Put to the votes, the proposal is accepted. The plain text could look more or less like: 

	INCORPORACIÓN DE PROTOCOLO DE ACUERDO DE LA LEY DE PRESUPUESTOS PARA EL 2006.
	
	El señor ASCENCIO (Presidente).- 
	  Tiene la palabra el diputado señor José Ortiz.
	
	El señor ORTIZ.-
	  Señor Presidente, el miércoles 2 de noviembre, la Cámara de Diputados despachó, ...
	  En consecuencia, voy a entregar ese documento oficial, ...
	  He dicho
	
	El señor ASCENCIO (Presidente).- 
	  ¿Habría acuerdo para incorporar dicho Protocolo en el acta y en la versión de la sesión 
	  en la que la Sala despachó el proyecto de ley de Presupuestos?
	
	Acordado.
	
As one can see, there are three speeches (by the Chair, by Mr. Ortiz and by the Chair again) and then an unspecified list of utterances meant to prepare, perform, and assess the vote, shortly summarized in the text by one sentence, "Acordado" (Approved). According to the Chilean rules, this section has one main speech, by Ortiz, and some additional, less important speeches to introduce, conclude, and possibly (but not in this case) interrupt, reply, comment, etc., the main speech. It is important for Chileans to identify the main speech and give it the correct emphasis. Not only: in case the main speech was interrupted, the debate report would mention two separate speeches by the main speaker, before and after the interruption, while conceptually this is clearly only one speech that was interrupted. 

The XML proposed by the Chileans uses debateSection to wraps connected speeches in a single unit, and to give the correct emphasis to the main speech of a collection. Furthermore they identify the authors and the roles of the speakers inline, as well as the existence of a vote:

	<debateSection id="ct1-db1" name="Debate" bcn:uriResultadoDebate="#SeAprueba">
	  <heading>INCORPORACIÓN DE PROTOCOLO DE ACUERDO DE LA LEY DE PRESUPUESTOS PARA EL 2006.</heading>
	  <debateSection id="ct1-db1-part1" name="Participacion" refersTo="#Ortiz" bcn:uriRol="#cargo_1" bcn:uriTipoParticipacion="#intervencion">
	
		<speech by="#Ascencio">
		  <from>El señor <person id="p815" refersTo="#Ascencio">ASCENCIO</person> (<role id="a152" refersTo="#cargo_322">Presidente</role>).- </from>
		  <p>Tiene la palabra el diputado señor José Ortiz.</p>
		</speech>
	
		<speech by="#Ortiz">
		  <from>El señor <person id="p8183" refersTo="#Ortiz">ORTIZ</person>.-</from>
		  <p>Señor Presidente, el miércoles 2 de noviembre, la Cámara de Diputados despachó...</p>
		  <p>En consecuencia, voy a entregar ese documento oficial, ...</p>
		  <p>He dicho</p>
		</speech>
	  </debateSection>
	
	  <debateSection id="ct1-db1-vot1" name="Votacion">
		<speech by="#Ascencio">
		  <p>El señor <person id="p855" refersTo="#Ascencio">ASCENCIO</person> (<role id="a1152" refersTo="#cargo_322">Presidente</role>).-</from> 
		  <p>¿Habría acuerdo para incorporar dicho Protocolo en el acta y en la versión de la sesión 
		  en la que la Sala despachó el proyecto de ley de Presupuestos?</p>
		</speech>
	
		<summary>
		  <outcome refersTo="#aprobacionUnanime">Acordado.</outcome>
		</summary>
	
	  </debateSection>
	</debateSection>

In the Chilean example there were two lesser problems and one major. The lesser problems are connected the markup pollution given by the use of person and role elements to mark individuals and roles in the from element (instead of using attributes of the speech element) and by the use of yet another debateSection to mark the existence of the vote (instead of using the voting element in the analysis section of the metadata). 

The major problem is that the use of debateSection as a grouping mechanism, instead of physical separation of individual speeches, is a bit of a stretch, and also requires the report to include a number of ad hoc attributes (such as  bcn:uriRol or bcn:uriTipoParticipacion) that are hard to the eye (at least to my eye). 

Yet, Akoma Ntoso, at the moment, does not provide any mechanism for grouping speeches. So the proposal discussed during the Nov. 21st teleconf, and further expanded by Monica's mail dated Nov. 28th, is to add a grouping element, at the moment called <speechGroup>, with the same attributes as speech, question and answer, that is a container of individual speeches but identifies the relevant information about the contained elements. 

The above example would then be rendered as follows: 

	<debateSection id="ct1-db1" name="Debate">
	  <heading>INCORPORACIÓN DE PROTOCOLO DE ACUERDO DE LA LEY DE PRESUPUESTOS PARA EL 2006.</heading>
	  <debateGroup id="ct1-db1-grp1" by="#Ortiz">
		<speech by="#Ascencio" as="#presidente">
		  <from>El señor ASCENCIO (Presidente).- </from>
		  <p>Tiene la palabra el diputado señor José Ortiz.</p>
		</speech>
	
		<speech by="#Ortiz">
		  <from>El señor ORTIZ.-</from>
		  <p>Señor Presidente, el miércoles 2 de noviembre, la Cámara de Diputados despachó...</p>
		  <p>En consecuencia, voy a entregar ese documento oficial, ...</p>
		  <p>He dicho</p>
		</speech>
	
		<speech by="#Ascencio" as="#presidente">
		  <from>El señor ASCENCIO (Presidente).-</from>
		  <p>¿Habría acuerdo para incorporar dicho Protocolo en el acta y en la versión de la sesión 
		  en la que la Sala despachó el proyecto de ley de Presupuestos?</p>
		</speech>
		<summary id="ct-db1-grp1-vot1"><outcome>Acordado.</outcome></summary>
	  </debateGroup>
	</debateSection>

The debateGroup element records the necessary information about the identification of the main aspects of the list of speeches. As for the outcome, we will add a voting element in the analysis section of the metadata as follows: 

	<analysis source="#bcn">
	  <parliamentary>
	    <voting id="v1" outcome="#aprobacionUnanime" href="#ct1-db1-grp1-vot1">
	      <count id="v1-c1" value="0" refersTo="#SinConteo"/>
	    </voting>
	  </parliamentary>
	</analysis>

The only problem that I see i with the name of the term speechGroup. The problem is that, as Monica points out, this element needs to contain speeches as well as questions, answers, others, narratives, summaries, etc., and therefore the term speechGroup may seem contrived. I am eager to read your proposals on the subject. 

Final point, Eridan Otto asks for my ideas as to the management of amendments in the flow of a debate, as in the following excerpt: 

	El señor ÁLVAREZ (Presidente).-
	  Por haber sido objeto de numerosas indicaciones, vuelve a la Comisión para segundo informe. 
	  
	-El proyecto fue objeto de las siguientes indicaciones: 
	
	ARTÍCULO 1º 
	Inciso primero Número 1)  (Artículo 116 bis B)
	
	1. De la señora Rubilar y de los señores Nicolás Monckeberg y Cristián Monckeberg para reemplazar el inciso primero por los siguientes
	"Artículo 116 bis B.- La solicitud de instalación, ...".
	
	2. Del señor Alvarado para suprimir la expresión "o rurales,". 
	
The following is the XML proposal by Eridan, which is on purpose incomplete: 

  <speech by="#alvarez" as="#president">
    <from> El señor ÁLVAREZ (Presidente).- </from>
    <p>Por haber sido objeto de numerosas indicaciones, vuelve a la Comisión para segundo informe. </p>
  </speech>

  <narrative> -El proyecto fue objeto de las siguientes indicaciones: </narrative>

  <debateSection id="ds9-pl01-part3" name="ListaIndicaciones">
    <debateSection id="ds9-pl01-part3-part1" name="ParteIndicacion" refersTo="#referenciaParteTextoProyecto"
      title="ARTÍCULO 1º Inciso primero Número 1) ">
      <heading>ARTÍCULO 1º</heading>
      <subheading> Inciso primero Número 1) (Artículo 116 bis B)</subheading>
      <xxxxxx>
        <yyyyyy>1. De la señora Rubilar y de los señores Nicolás Monckeberg y Cristián Monckeberg para reemplazar
          el inciso primero por los siguientes </yyyyyy> 
        “Artículo 116 bis B.- La solicitud de instalación, ..." 
      </xxxxxx>
      <xxxxxx>2<yyyyyy>. Del señor Alvarado</yyyyyy> para suprimir la expresión “o rurales,”. </xxxxxx>
    </debateSection>
  </debateSection>

First of all, an amendment is introduced by a mod element, that contains ref elements to indicate the destination, and quotedText or quotedStructure elements to indicate the text to change. Second, it is my impression that the debateSection should start before the introductory speech: Third, as already used before, in a debate there can only be two options: either we are reporting an spoken contribution (e.g., "I hereby propose to amend art. 12 adding words such and such"), in which case we will use "speech", or we are including a text document (in which case we will use "other"), or we are summarizing a longish debate whose actual speeches are not reported verbatim (in which case we will use "summary"). In this case I am assuming it is the third situation, of a complex debate exchange summarized in a few lines. As such, my version would be as follows: 

	<debateSection id="ds9-pl01-part2" name="ListaIndicaciones">
		<speech by="#alvarez" as="#president">
		  <from> El señor ÁLVAREZ (Presidente).- </from>
		  <p>Por haber sido objeto de numerosas indicaciones, vuelve a la Comisión para segundo informe.</p>
		</speech>
	
		<narrative> -El proyecto fue objeto de las siguientes indicaciones: </narrative>
	
		<debateSection id="ds9-pl01-part2-parte1" name="ParteIndicacion" refersTo="#referenciaParteTextoProyecto"
		  title="ARTÍCULO 1º Inciso primero Número 1) ">
		  <heading>ARTÍCULO 1º</heading>
		  <subheading>(Inciso primero Número 1) (Artículo 116 bis B)</subheading>
		  <summary> De la señora <person id="p1" refersTo="#rubilar">Rubilar</person> y de los señores <person id="p2"
			  refersTo="#nmonckeberg">Nicolás Monckeberg</person> y <person id="p3" refersTo="#cmonckeberg">>Cristián
			  Monckeberg</person>
			<mod id="ds9-pl01-part2-parte1-mod1">para reemplazar el <ref id="r1" href="xxxx"> inciso primero</ref> por
			  los siguientes " <quotedStructure id="ds9-pl01-part2-parte1-mod1-qtd1">
				<article id="ds9-pl01-part2-parte1-mod1-qtd1-art116bisB">
				  <num>Artículo 116 bis B.- </num>
				  <content>
					<p>La solicitud de instalación, ...</p>
				  </content>
				</article>
			  </quotedStructure>" </mod>. </summary>
		  <summary> Del señor Alvarado <mod id="ds9-pl01-part2-parte1-mod2">para suprimir la expresión “<quotedText
				id="ds9-pl01-part2-parte1-mod1-qtd2">o rurales</quotedText>,”</mod>. </summary>
		</debateSection>
	</debateSection>

I hope this was clear enough. We can further talk about it at the next teleconf on Dec. 5th. 

Ciao

Fabio 


--

Fabio Vitali                            Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly,
Dept. of Computer Science        Man got to sit and wonder "Why, why, why?'
Univ. of Bologna  ITALY               Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land,
phone:  +39 051 2094872              Man got to tell himself he understand.
e-mail: fabio@cs.unibo.it         Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007), "Cat's cradle"
http://vitali.web.cs.unibo.it/






[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]